Sorry about the side track...where were we up to again...somewhere around here...

Quote:

Spearthrower said

Well, clearly not if you say there's no rational reason for something when there is a rational reason for something.

And a person sacrificing themselves for a complete stranger?

When we talk about an action being rational for a particular person, it all depends on the perspective of the person in question. I understand, we can be looking outside the situation with our knowledge and judge the person for not acting rationally, but if we assess the persons decision based on what they knew and their life experience we could say that it is rational.

Based on this we can assess a few paths of reasoning to determine if "a person sacrificing themselves for a complete stranger".

i) It is an evolutionary urge to protect the tribe to improve survival.
ii) They just did what they saw as right. People have moral frameworks based on evolution and social conditioning and it is paramount that they are followed as it causes difficulties, even mental illness to live with conflicting moral values and actions.
iii) They may be afraid of what other people may think if they don't do something.

However, if someone is aware of their evolved tendencies and has the strength to overpower them and they know their moral framework is just illusory and don't care what other people think, then...I don't see a rational reason for sacrificing themselves for a stranger because it is a net cost.

So I am not just saying there is no rational reason, but a rational reason for a person who has the strength to overcome evolutionary urges, caring about what other people think and know that morality is just an illusion.

DB used the word cheating and I think this is a fantastic, clear term. Basically it means breaking the rules for the purposes of a net (and easy/easier) gain.

I don't see any rational reason why not to cheat. Please don't throw the consequences argument at me...it's easy to contrive situations, as I have already, where risk of consequences are minimal.

To be clear, I am not saying atheists are any way immoral or less moral...I am just trying to assess rational reasons for being moral.

Quote:

Not that it really matters because, contrary to what you declared before, you've just offered a reason!

Or rather, it depends on whether you apply rationality.

Yes, the ever moving goalposts - I know exactly what to expect.

Regardless, you were mistaken - but I bet you don't change your mind based on that.

I don't need to. You offered one which contradicts your claim, then tried to dismiss it. This is why I said I wouldn't bother going into these details. If you're going to reject X, then you're going to reject X1, X2, X3 and so on.

But as I explained - I am not doing this to reach agreement with you. I am doing this to show that you're wrong. You just did that for me.

I understand that may seem to be the case. I had thought all this through before posting, but I don't want to include responses to all possible counter arguments in a post. I'm still trying to assess whether it is worth do that.

I accept that I didn't make clear upfront the different angles I would be applying rationality.

Instead of worrying about chemistry and physics lets just talk about a mind as a thing. If a particular set of circumstances present them selves in exact detail, when the state of the mind is an exact reset to the original state then, yes, the same decisions will play out on every repetition.

So what?

Above we are talking about a single instance in time. That is, a particular brain state and sensory input...agreeing to the above we can extrapolate to every instance in time. That is to say, whenever a person is confronted with sensory input...there is only one possible outcome which will be predetermined by their current brain state (leaving aside possible randomness at the quantum level).

So the persons actions are purely determined by a previous brain state and sensory input...all the way back to the womb.

The issue here is, at no point do we have any ability to override this train of choices. All the 'choices' you have ever made are not really choices...as if you could have chosen something else. They are choices made like a chess computer (self learning or otherwise) chooses it's next move.

This is not an argument against the view above, just a personal note, that I find it difficult to accept and it is counter to my perception of reality.

Wouldn't the above view then be supporting fatalism?

Quote:

We concern ourselves that that state of mind exists and that its reaction to a situation is one that we do not want, so we look to see how we can alter the state of that mind so it will produce better decisions in the future. If we cannot then we look to restrict the freedom of the person to carry out their decisions.

The above could make some sense about how you can act in such a way as to influence another mind, but it doesn't make sense if you are referring to influencing your own mind...I would suggest that you are your mind.

Of course I do. But it wasn't inherent. I was taught it as I was raised. Like all humans. You claimed inherent knowledge. Prove it or retract it please.

Then you should have been able to answer the question, because you haven't. You have re-framed it to suit your purposes.

Re the bolded bit - no, everyone dies from lack of oxygen to the brain. please prove otherwise. Otherwise it is only your belief that everyone dies at the hand of god.

There has never been any actual reliable evidence that our lives are anything more than what we have here in the physical world. You are again re-framing the question and making massive, bigly claims without a skerrick of evidence.

And what, exactly is good about that? A murderer goes to prison for killing a child, but if god does it he gets a free fucking pass? Give me a break. You do realise you are making excuses for the execution for virtually all children on the planet, and that your excuse is nothing more than your own personal unsubstantiated belief don't you? It is amoral and you are amoral.

No I didn't, as it is irrelevant. How do you know there IS a better alternative? From reading the same book that says it was OK to murder all of the people on the planet?

Not in my argument. Of course, as you continue to practice wilful cognitive dissonance there is on your part.

And yet you do. Go figure.

This is just semantics. We ARE changing our views on what is moral because we ARE learning new stuff by the minute. Hence - not objective.

Then why did you bring it up? Wasn't my term. If you are now saying that you cannot prove there is a perfect being then please publicly acknowledge that such is the case.

Point spectacularly missed. The point is that at that time when the bible was written, it was considered moral for a god to kill everything. Now, educated people have more respect for all life. Clearly, you don't.

Firstly, regarding that last sentence, that was a spectacular failure then wasn't it? Just like all the other times this cosmic nitwit has fucked everything up.

Secondly, I sincerely hope you do not have pets.

1. Bow down in slavery. Yeah that was held to be moral in biblical times wasn't it? I forgot that. Silly me. I mean the fact that humanity has finally learned that humans should not own other humans since then can be ignored. /snark.
2. And yet it was forced on everyone who had not heard the bible words in the flood myth.
3. see 2.

You still haven't proved that morals are objective because you are deliberately seeing everything through god-coloured glasses. And your paragraph trying to justify cruelty to animals makes we want to go shower. Yes or no question: "Would you kick a puppy in the head"?

before I respond to this, could you please frame your line of reasoning?
You seem to be attacking the consistency of God's morality as depicted in the bible, but then you are not accepting reasoning based on the presumption that God exists? If you want to assess if his actions are moral you need to presume that he exists to make such an assessment. To be clear, this is not a proof of God's existence...but just an assessment on whether it could be accepted if his actions could possibly be moral if he existed.

before I respond to this, could you please frame your line of reasoning?
You seem to be attacking the consistency of God's morality as depicted in the bible, but then you are not accepting reasoning based on the presumption that God exists? If you want to assess if his actions are moral you need to presume that he exists to make such an assessment. To be clear, this is not a proof of God's existence...but just an assessment on whether it could be accepted if his actions could possibly be moral if he existed.

Not in the slightest bit true, Phil.

Let's talk about Sauron's morality as depicted in the Lord of the Rings - does Sauron actually need to be real if we want to assess whether his actions are moral?

before I respond to this, could you please frame your line of reasoning?
You seem to be attacking the consistency of God's morality as depicted in the bible, but then you are not accepting reasoning based on the presumption that God exists? If you want to assess if his actions are moral you need to presume that he exists to make such an assessment. To be clear, this is not a proof of God's existence...but just an assessment on whether it could be accepted if his actions could possibly be moral if he existed.

Spearthrower already said it better than I could.

Now how about you actually address some of the issues I've raised instead of re-framing things to suit your own purposes.

Let's talk about Sauron's morality as depicted in the Lord of the Rings - does Sauron actually need to be real if we want to assess whether his actions are moral?

I don't think so. I think you're making hoops.

I accept your point.

However, wouldn't one need to assume that the events and details provided in the Lord of the Rings happened and were correct...not necessarily real.

My post was in response to requests to prove things like inherent knowledge of evil or prove that everyone dies at the hand of God. These are biblical views that I have expressed to defend criticism of a biblical character, God. I want to know if Stubby is willing to accept biblical evidence for such views.